Bush Hurricane Conspiracy

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by Slaughterist, Sep 14, 2004.

  1. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,946
    But that just summed it up. There are plenty of good reasons for limiting pollution (death and dirt being the top two).... but global warming hasn't really been supported. Throwing it in there doesn't really do any good as any result is miniscule compared to Earth's natural weather patterns.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Wesmorris,

    Don't be so god damn touchy. My comment was made as in comparison to the Bush administration creating hurricanes to wipe out Fla.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    But while on the subject of Bush he has shown a complete lack of interest in EPA and more interested in helping Haliburton or getting prayer in school.

    I think the issues of the enviornment even man's possible harmful affect on the planet, should be well ahead of any of those priorities of his.

    We don't need to jump through our asses but we damn should get our heads out of our asses. As you indicated "I do not know" but the unfortunate part is "You don't either". So I think it is high time to start taking it serious and looking into it.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,844
    Hello? That none of us know whassup is exactly the point. I do believe it's being taken very seriously, but from the way you talk one might think there is no such thing as the EPA and the gajillion hoops corporations already jump through in an attempt to minimize their impact on the environment. In the long term, I'm quite sure that most corporations (will) realize that negatively impacting the environment hurts the corporation. In the long term, the it's not smart to kill off your customer/employee base. It's kind of hard to have sales when there's no one to work and no one to buy your goods.

    Oh, and I'm generally touchy when someone calls me "overconfident and dangerous" and it's actually them who seems to be doing that. My position is realistic, whereas blaming the president for "degrading global climate" is simply fallacious.

    And if you're just jazzing me then pardon, I didn't catch it. Seemed serious to me.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Only serious in the sense that your post seemed to be absolutest and anti-enviornment. I agree that rush to judgement and actions where no specific cause relationship can be shown is foolish. It cost jobs, etc. But frankly there are areas where known harm is occuring and the Bush Admin has in fact rolled back many of the previously imposed restrictions.
     
  8. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,844
    You read that into it. Read it again.

    Which was my point. To my knowledge, that is no complete long term weather model. Without that, it's rather difficult to assign cause and effect. With the window of accurate prediction dimishing within days, I think it's ridiculous to pretend we know something large and definative about our impact. That's not to say it's impossible, it's just not here yet. There are a number of people concerned with the issue and working toward a solution. I do not think it wise to consider the "humans cause global warming" camp as legitimate until there is hard, irrefutable evidence to support their position. Note that regardless, as a precautionary method it's prudent to attempt to minimize impact, but not at the cost of people going hungry.

    The comments were regarding the long term weather forecast (which you just agreed with me about). Which restrictions have been rolled back that have an impact on the weather? Did you just agree with me that we can't at all accurately correlate the environmental impact of humanity with the trends of large-scale weather? If so, you got served dawg.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Yeah sorry I just couldn't stop myself. That is all.

    Er, well.. almost all.

    Please, if you want to be paranoid about something, there are any number of natural disasters to be paranoid about, and at least a few I'm aware of will change the climate more in a matter of hours than humanity has during their brief stint on this rock. Can you say "supervolcano"?
     
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2004
  9. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Can you spell "Astroid"? You see how serious they take that. We know it happens and there are a half dozen near misses per year. It is indeed just a matter of time before we get our asses kicked and have made no preperations what-so-ever.

    And no we agree that the earth goes through rather large cycles but we have also seen mans impact on the enviornment. Cutting the rain forests (reducing oxygen production, etc and man made of stirred waste chemicals becoming embedded into the soil and making its way in to the food chain.

    Have you looked at the fish industry lately? Far fewer fish and many with abnormal cancerous growths.? Pollution man it is a real issue. How many beaches are now closed to human swimming?

    Do you actually believe that LA's "Fog" is natural? Hardly. You want jobs. Cut the unemployment and welfare and use the money to put people to work on clean up.
     
  10. Pangloss More 'pop' than a Google IPO! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    767
    We only have temperature data going back a century or so. That's it. So as I understand it there's really no way to tell if the current upward trend is an actual change or just part of the normal cyclical trends we see all over the archeological record in the form of ice age delineations.

    We could be better about our greenhouse emissions, sure. We should do better. But let's not get carried away.
     
  11. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,946
    Either address the issue or shut the hell up. Wesmorris said nothing about these things and only mentioned global warming and long term global weather patterns. Neither of these correlations have been substantially supported.

    But I'm assuming you know this because you sudenly changed the subject. None of the things you listed are really in dispute, so what the hell is your point?
     
  12. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Screw you big mouth. Just who the hell do you think you are to tell others to shut the hell up. You are a pathetic ignoramous.
     
  13. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,102
    Guys. Don't get into a slanging match over the conversation topic, its just a discussion not a reason to pull some varient of jihad. I know my butting in can enflame too however its kind of what I'm suppose to do and of course attempting to defuse the volatile situations that people get themselves into on this forum.

    So ease up, Agree you disagree thats all you have to do not resort to petty squabbling.
     
  14. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,946
    Don't give me any ideas

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I'm just tired of him completely changing the topic everytime he realizes he was wrong... and then pretending to be right.
     
  15. SKULLZ Banned Banned

    Messages:
    248
    I didnt think controlling the weather was possible at all,or at least itd be pointless to try considering the butterfly effect in chaos theory,the whole point of the theory was to prove that all initial conditions fall into a chaos in comparrison to a *near* identical initial condition.
    You litterly end up with two completely different outcomes even if the initial conditions are virtually identical.

    Its cos of what that theory shows that makes time travel in single worldlines so stupid,as soon as you go in the past,it interupts with conditions of the moment,so that over time the distant future would be completely different than what it would have otherwise been,even if you didnt change anything,your arrival is an interuption.

    There was a story called "A sound of thunder" short story about hunters using time travel to kill dinosaurs,but kill a butterfly and drastically alter the future.

    Theres also a big budget film coming out of the same name,i look forward to that.
     
  16. Rappaccini Redoubtable Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,192
    Need I elaborate?
     
  17. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Asteroid.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. antisipatience waiting for something Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    90
    more like Hemorrhoid
     
  19. Marsoups Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    86
    Pah! What a load of bullocks you are writing !!
    There is plenty of evidence to suggest that we are INCREASING the rate of global warming. Read any f*cking scientific journal on the matter .
    We are pumping out tons and tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. And there is enormous amounts of tree felling going on. The carbon dioxide in the atmosphere just isn't getting converted into oxygen, and unfortunately the carbon dioxide traps heat, in effect, leading to a general warming of the entire planet. This will have devastating and unpredicable consequences for the future. This is all proven science at work here. We have to work at the cause and find other solutions, soon. The corporations can't keep us going forever at this virtual suicide. I recommend you do some reading, how about some New Scientist?
    They have been measuring temperatures differences from the last hundred years. Worked out how fast the ice shelves have been retreating in the last 100 years compared to evidence that shows the rate of change over the last few ten thousand or even 100 thousand years. There is plenty evidence all around the world for this type of thing.

    It is obvious that in the last 100 years human civilisation has reshaped the world far more than the effects of people living on the planet in the last 10 000 years.

    Do some reading before you bleet on about something with such dangerous consequences!


    Cheers.
     
  20. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,844
    Right. So prove to me that the rate wouldn't have increased without humanity and I'll buy your assertion. Otherwise you're blowing smoke yourself. Gosh you should watch that. You might contribute to global warming.

    Sure. Are we the sole source of it? How do we compare in volume to other sources? Can we say definitively that it's enough to warm it up? Can we say definitively that the estimates of our contributions are realistic? Can we account directly that it is exactly the carbond dioxide that we contribute that is a problem?

    In north america there are as many or more trees than there were in the 1920s.

    The problem with your theory is that it's basically impossible to say how much of it is because of humanity's input to the system. Further, there is some natural process that removes it from the atmosphere or the planet would be like venus. I can't remember what it is. I thought it was rain or something. There is plenty of rain. So maybe humanitie's contribution is as much as a number of volcanoes/year. Can you show how we are "maxing out" the undisturbed climate? Can you show how we are "beyond the limit" of the system's ability to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere?

    How scientific of you.

    You're jumping to conclusions. Perhaps you can present your credentials so I can marvel at them? Are you so sure you're qualified to correct me as to what is "proven science"? You certainly seem confident. Egotistical even.

    Perhaps we should work on making sure we understand the system before we "find other solutions". The unfortunate reality is that the sustenance of billions of people depends in part on burning fossil fuels - for now. Of course like I said before, reducing potential impact is probably prudent for now, but not at the expense of collapsing entire economies to do it.

    Ah, so you're a corporate conspiracy theorist? Impressive. I'm so tired of leftist asshats complaining about corporations. It's my guess that you're simply another hater who has determined capitalism is the end of man and the all corporations are bad and people in them should be flogged? How superior of you.

    As I haven't found your post to be of much substance, your recommendation follows suit.

    Show me 1 billion years worth of evidence on the topic and I'll maybe buy part of your argument. Otherwise I'd say your argument is entirely ego. Note that my objection is not to warming, but that the warming is certainly cause by humans and that it won't reverse without deliberate intervention at point x in the future. You can't show it, so you have no argument. Again I agree that precautionary measures should be undertaken due to our ignorance. I don't know if we'd agree on what measures should be taken. I do know however, that your assertions as to causality are shit. It is reasonable to have suspicion, but unreasonable to assert it as fact.

    Says your ego nostradomus. It's obvious to me that you don't know a damned thing about science or statistics. That doesn't mean it's true.

    Don't be so condescending.

    Cheers.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 26, 2004
  21. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,946
    Yes, please do read 'any fucking scientific journal on the matter'. You will see a debate of the topic. The magnitude of the effect we have is unknown.
    They have models that show we are the main reason for increasing temperatures.
    They have other models that show that all the pollutants we've put out wouldn't have had much of an effect. there was an article in Nature a while back calculating how much CO2 we release compared to that normally generated. If I recall correctly it wasn't even 1%. There have been other articles about how ocean water actually absorbs CO2.

    I agree, we have an effect on the enviroment (obviously). I disagree that we should actually care. If we are only going to change the temperature by .5 degrees, we could really care less.

    (And don't start on 'the glaciers will melt and flood us all'. The amount of above water level ice isn't enough.)
     
  22. Marsoups Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    86
    That is a strange way to tackle this situation -- to proclaim that because the evidence is there that the warming is occuring AT A MUCH FASTER RATE than it has over the last 1000 or even 500 years in the last 100 years doesn't hint that humanities activities has exasperated this effect is to me, rather bizarre. If it is not humanities doing, then what else could it be that the earths average temperature is increasing at a much more rapid rate than ever recorded according to records. Does the increasing amount of Co2 in the atmosphere NOT account for this in your opinion? Please explain what other phenomena BESIDES human activites could account for this, before you tackle what current science is pointing at.
    We're not the sole source of Co2 in the atmosphere, but we are increasing it muchly with the global Co2 factory we have going here on earth. There is no evidence to suggest that volcanoes or underwater "bubbles" of Co2 have suddenly, in the last 100 years been filtering into the atmosphere, not sure what other ideas you have for this there.
    I would say we can say our estimates of our contributions are realistic - there is good info on file, at a pretty good guess, of how many cars there are for example in our cities. We have good info on how polluted our cities get on a still day. We have good info on how much forestland, such as that in Brazil, is being cleared every year. We have good info on how many coal & oil powerhouses we have here on earth. Those "guestimates" we are making is based on good solid info.
    To answer your last question - human understanding about the gases is actually quiet advanced - we understand how Carbon Dioxide traps more heat than Oxygen does. That can be demonstrated repeatedly in tests.

    Good on 'yaz! The Aussie government doesn't care too much for the old growth Tasmanian forests unfortunately. And I'd say we have less trees in this country that we ever have.

    The natural processes that remove Co2 are the forests and the oceans, not rain afaik.
    Please point to or explain evidence which shows that our contribution is as much as one volcanoe in a year?
    Not sure how to interpret your last question, as we will never be beyond the limit -- every step we take in the right direction is what we need to be looking @, not merely ignoring it and covering it in mud.

    My credentials are as much as armchair enthusiast, however I think that's enough with all the evidence surrounding us in every corner.
    It seems you are diverting the attack to the arguer here, not the theory behind it.

    I don't believe that you agree with the idea that global warming with human assistance is taking place, and I think that's an issue and it's unsettling that people are willing to put 10 million dollars on teh betting table and think this way. Personally, I think that given small shifts in our way of thinking and handling this we will be taking steps in the right direction. We should be saying, at this relatively early age in this process that is taking place "well, lets set ourselves some targets -- in the next 20 years or so we want all automobiles to be non-reliant off our (limited) supply of fossil fuels. Remember that once oil supplies come to a hault - there won't be ANYTHING left for us to use, this will collapse the manufacturing industry COMPLETELY, no more appliances for you and me or your grandchildren! So is it not prudent to start considering these matters NOW, and to forget about blindly intruding into other countries that have done no wrong doing "for our precious economy" and consider some priorities!

    I am sort of, to an extent. I beleive that the big corporations are robbing the smaller guys and there is loasds of uncompetitive behaviour going on with the large corporations. There is so much money embezzlement bullshit going on, I mean for one, let's just say you're a poor man software developer and you bring out a program to display slide shows quickly and easily. Nowadays you can get your little arse sued by the company that believes that you stole some companies millions of $ of research in how to create a drop-down box. Okay that example may be a little far fetched but it's pretty close.... The rich lawyers out there have merely set up a franchise there for themselves to protect their own interests and the interests of the big corporations. Nice.
    A McDonalds in every village -- sweet!! Lovely, my face just lights up every time I see that great reminder of global homogeneousness.

    Why do I get the feeling that you are somehow involved with large corporations yourself. Sounds like your not such a "little guy" to me.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Did you find any graphs like this :

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    SOunds like you're burying your head in the sand mate. 1 billion years of evidence would be a little hard to pull considering we don't even have 1 billion years of ice core to drill through..

    Attacks aside here, it seems to me that you are refuting the evidence that SCIENTISTS have been pulling out of their clackers... Pull another one !


    Ciao
     
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2004
  23. alain du hast mich Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,179

Share This Page